User:Gabby223/Colonial Disease in Hawai'i/Peterpietri Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Gabby223
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Gabby223/Colonial Disease in Hawai'i

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * This is a new article so all content in the article was done solely by the user. That being said, the article does reflect the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I would say that the introductory sentence could be rewritten to be a little more concise and better define the topic. Currently, it states "Colonial disease in Hawai‘i has been an issue in the Hawaiian islands for hundreds of years." It is a little redundant to say "in Hawai'i" and then again state "in the Hawaiian islands." The introductory sentence could thus be rewritten to more clearly define what colonial disease in Hawai'i is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * For the most part, yes. I would say there could be a sentence or too added to briefly describe the Modern Disease section. The last sentence of the Lead states: "While the population of Native Hawaiians has slowly begun to return, the affect that the introduction of colonizers and their diseases had on Native Hawaiians will always be felt for the domino effect of destruction it caused." This hints to the Modern Disease section, but I think it could be more concisely and neutrally rewritten to briefly introduce the last section of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, there is no information in the Lead that is not later elaborated upon in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise and provides an overview of the article in a succinct, flowing manner. The lead is very informative but to-the-point!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes! All content added is very up-to-date, as the article even includes how Native Hawaiians have been impacted by the current pandemic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. All content belongs in the article and there are no missing areas of content. The article is very thorough.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes! The article examines how Native Hawaiians, an indigenous population, has been affected by colonial disease, with indigenous peoples being a historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I would say this is the largest area for improvement. There are various instances where emotionally-charged diction is used to elicit the wrongdoings of colonial populations. This is a very tricky task, as it is obvious that colonial populations have atrociously affected the Native Hawaiians. However, with Wikipedia being neutral, it is crucial to remove any hints of bias. Additionally, the first-person narrative is used a couple times.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I would say the claims appear heavily biased towards the Native Hawaiians.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Although there are some biases, I would say all viewpoints are covered, as the user also includes the mentality behind some of the colonists, like James Cook.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content subtly attempts to persuade the reader in favor of the Native Hawaiians.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all content is backed up by a reliable source of information. Each statement of fact is followed up with a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes! The article even includes recent sources from the past few months that examine how Native Hawaiians have been impacted by COVID-19.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Given that this article is covering Native Hawaiians, a historically marginalized population, the article made sure to include their voices and perspectives.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Of the sources that included links, they all appeared to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is very well-written. All information is laid out in an easy-to-read manner, which is credited to the great organization of the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any evidence of grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Very! I really enjoyed this article's organization, separating the time periods of disease into distinct chunks, and then adding sections which examine how these diseases have impacted the Native Hawaiians in the modern world.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * n/a
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * n/a

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Yes, the article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources used is very extensive. Many perspectives are reflected as the user uses myriad reliable and diverse sources.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Yes, the organization/structure of this article is akin to that of many other existing articles. Additionally, there are links that connect to other Wikipedia pages, a feature seen in existing articles. There are, however, no infoboxes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes! The article does link to other articles. When published, I also recommend that other pages include links to this article, making it even more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Although a new article, the overall quality is very complete and thorough. The article very intensively examines the legacy of Hawai'i's past with disease, and the implications of such a legacy in the modern world. The overall article is very informative and thoroughly describes the topic at hand.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content of the article is very concise, well-organized, and thoroughly provides all information colonial regarding disease in Hawai'i.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved by removing all hints of bias, ensuring the entire article is neutral, and removing any use of the first-person point of view.